Treble Damages Not Extended Through Family Care Doctrine, Says Court

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Plaintiff injured party sued defendants, a driver and the owner of the driver's car, for injuries from a car accident. The injured party alleged the owner was vicariously liable to her under the family care doctrine. The family care doctrine extends responsibility to family members, usually parents or guardians, for injuries that result at the hand of a family member. In the case at hand, the plaintiff argues that the husband is vicariously responsible for the injuries caused by his wife's car accident.

In addition, the plaintiff moved for treble damages, or a tripling of the original damages award. This multiplication of damages is allowed by statute only in specific situations, usually as a punitive measure or deterrent for reckless actions that can cause serious injury. Defendants moved to strike the vicarious liability count and the accompanying demand for relief, to the extent that they sought double or treble damages. In this case, the plaintiff argues that the vicarious liability created by the family care doctrine would thereby extend treble damages to the husband.

The injured party contended that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-183 abrogated or created an exception to the common-law rule against vicarious liability for exemplary or punitive damages. In granting defendants' motion to strike the vicarious liability count, the superior court noted that the legislature did not express a public policy displacing or overriding the common-law rule against vicarious exemplary and punitive damages when it enacted § 52-183. The superior court found that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-183 did not clearly and unambiguously create a cause of action for double, treble, exemplary, or punitive damages against a non-operator owner of a family car under the family car doctrine for the reckless acts of its operating agent. Therefore, the legislature did not abrogate, or repeal, the common-law rule that a person who was vicariously liable for the acts of another was not liable for punitive or exemplary damages. The motion to strike the vicarious liability count against the owner was granted.

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained. 

Please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Washburn v. Potter, 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 137 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 6. 2003)